Review 30 image hosting for quick publishing
A list of image hosting sites is presented, selected for an unusual, but in special cases important feature - the ability to publish a photo without authorization on the site. Photo hosting sites, which claim that they are “free”, but at the same time forget about this important degree of freedom, are ruthlessly screened out, but somewhere at the end of the review, links to the most popular ones are given. Other important conditions for entering the list are not forgotten - reliability and storage time, usability and the absence of intrusive advertising. Subsequently, it is worth choosing from the entire list of 5-7 most worthy and convenient hosting sites.
The special cases for which this review is made are the publication of a certain image (pictures, drawings, photographs, screenshots, graphs) on other (not own) resources, especially where there are no solutions for publishing photos (Habr including) or they are inconvenient . These are articles on foreign resources or in their blogs on foreign hosting (for example, blogger.com) with inconvenient or defective picture management, on online auctions, comments on blogs and forums.
')
Hosting for this publication provides text links in the form of HTML-, BB-codes or direct links to the image and page view, preview (they are also thumbnails) of various sizes and a number of other amenities. Consider them all and arrange the hosting found in descending order of averaged convenience. At the end, as a bonus, links to some other online image preparation resources, which also follow the optional authorization rule.
Recently, some hosting was introduced for public advertising purposes, which caused a number of unobvious doubts about its respectability. Meanwhile, ideas of using it as an image service for publishing on Habré were heard. There was a counter-question: which image hosting, in particular, for Habr, is better to use?
First, several hosting sites were investigated using the example of a single image. It was found that the convenience of work for different hosting sites is different, and the results (by weight of the full picture, type and weight of the preview) are different. It is not clear that in this “industry” there was a quality standard; everyone is striving for convenience and stop at different lines. There are few reviews of hosting sites [1] (all of them are also important as evidence of their former reputation), give an answer only to some of the questions. Therefore, it was decided to go into testing more thoroughly, to figure out what is really needed, by priorities, and what can be donated. It turned out that there are not 5-10 suitable hosting sites, but 4 times more (about 30), despite the fact that it is 2 times more screened out (40-60). The list of hosting does not claim to be complete and does not recommend anything to use - it simply cites data on the listed hosting, and the data speaks for itself. It is likely that temporary unstable services got here and more worthy ones did not get. Therefore, in the future, the table will sometimes be shuffled according to the results of checks.
For example, in the future it is not bad to carry out load testing of each of the hosting sites [4], to make download attempts several times at different rush hours, to monitor the availability of each hosting for months. All this, of course, is not done immediately. We take advantage of the fact of publication, to then monitor the services and monitor the quality of storage.
They are not designed to show small service drawings of website design (some allow), for this purpose, regular universal hosting is used. But they are trying to ensure the quality and reliability of displaying important for the user graphic information. On the reliability of the show, even their own development hosting will lose to them in the long-term existence of the link.
We are interested in hosting with some hard conditions. For example, there is a mandatory authorization - then you can not watch (because there are enough hosting with the possibility of anonymous publishing). Working only with the client program or inconvenience without it is the same. No preview size options - great reasons to choose other alternatives. Yes, and any restrictions of the free version of the account do not go to benefit, because they distract for unnecessary control: will my old photos not stop showing if any threshold is exceeded? Nevertheless, they are worthy of consideration and choice of tastes.
The required services are only a part of the overall image processing task. The previous parts (editing, capturing) are not deliberately considered, although some editing may end up in the hosting service. We will not look at too simplified and integrated services like gyazo.com, in which little attention is paid to the quality of details. They are good for one-time viewing of screenshots by a small group of people, but they lack tools for publishing (for thousands of views and quality requirements). Therefore, by default, we assume that we have a graphics editor and a screenshot taker, and without what they can do, we can do without.
Image hosting is divided into photo hosting and, conditionally, technical image hosting. If the first ones are focused on photographers and other “ordinary people” who may not have their own site, then the second ones suggest publishing photos (or screenshots, pictures) in blog or forum entries, and therefore do not seek to give their own gallery service for viewing. The first are fully capable of working in the niche of the second. Therefore, the strongest hosting in the world is designed for the first type - for all. As payment, they all mostly limit free accounts in the rights and duration of storage. We are interested in both reliability and non-restriction, so we will have to consider not only recognized leaders.
We list, in descending order of priority, the necessary and desirable qualities of service. At the beginning of the necessary, then under the line - desirable.
Finally, the review solves another strategic problem. Such painstaking work would not be necessary if it were not for the task to embed the most successful and robust services in the plugin for Firefox / Chrome, in the future - for Opera. Not only for Habr, where, of course, he is urgently needed, but generally as a universal plug-in (there are some for several Western services [2], but once repeated, it is qualitatively and with a comprehensive analysis). Therefore, we will be interested in the presence of the API in the service.
Of course, other ways are possible: 1) only a screenshoter that can edit within the necessary limits, like Ashampoo Magical Snap 2 + image hosting or 2) online flash editor + plug-in for screenshots in FF + image hosting with the “Crop (cropping)” function. They are also sufficient for publications, but due to quality issues we will consider them to go beyond the scope of the article and research.
To determine the quality of image processing when saved on a hosting, take a few pictures of different types and genres. Two screenshot PNG-8, one animated GIF, Two half-tone JPGs of different weights, one very large png with texts. Total, 6 pictures. They will measure the quality of compression and display previews. We will get a clear picture of data storage on each of the hosting sites. If it was possible to draw conclusions on 1-3 pictures, the rest were not uploaded to the hosting, therefore we have links from 1 to 6.
The choice of PNG-8 only is due to the fact that PNG24 is disadvantageous in volume for photos with semitones (in most cases it is better to choose JPG), and hosting companies tend to save PNG type in PNG24 rather than PNG-8, therefore testing PNG-8 will help to reveal more flaws save operations.
1-test-shotChromeExt.png - PNG-8, small screenshot, 892 h 1014, 37`452 bytes;
2-test-oak.jpg - small photo, 517 x 317, 41`844 bytes;
3-test-elfim.gif - test animated avatar, 128 x 96, 58`697 bytes;
4-test-GerdArntz.png - PNG-8, big long screenshot, 1002 x 11`862, 1`099`246 bytes;
5-test-river.jpg - large photo, 1996 x 2649, 1`272`068 bytes;
6-test-austria-hungary.png - PNG-8, 2 color, wide map, 4463 x 3330, 828`732 bytes;
It would be tempting to put on the page all the previews from the hosting sites, but we will not do this - even 1 preview (50 pictures) - this is a lot for 1 page. Therefore, we will put here for clarity, 6 previews from one good hosting, and all other links to the images of other providers will be through <a href>. At any time, the reader will be able to manually verify the existence of a picture on the selected hosting by clicking on a link.
We will provide the types of links: direct, to the screenshot, to the browse page, and, if available, some interesting features: gallery, preview options.
The comparison did not include some well-known, reliable, but not passed by some parameters hosting. A little more about them below [3]; the names of some: Yandex Photos, Flikr.com, Google Picasa ...
In order not to repeat the list below again, it is sorted according to the results of this study in descending order of functionality and convenience. In accordance with the incoming data on the reliability of the list will be sorted if possible. All references to images in the tables are made in principle without authorization to check the reliability of storage in the future.
Attention is paid to each different, it depended on the degree of interest and the proposed opportunities. Unpromising restrictions stopped studying after downloading 1-2 pictures. After the list there will be more detailed reviews of three interesting hosting sites. (When clicking on links 4, 5, 6, be careful: traffic for each is about 1 MB ! They are needed to test the storage and quality of large pictures on different services. Links 4, 5, 6 with the words "Preview" are usually 5-50 KB. )
(Based on discussions on the reliability of hosting, I rearranged the ranking positions of several sites in the top ten. --26.03.2010, 17:30)
(It turned out that Habr does not allow to publish a volume greater than 46 KB. It is strange, strange, because this is only half of the publication in the most interesting place. You will have to issue it in the second part.)
The transition to the continuation and end of the article.
The special cases for which this review is made are the publication of a certain image (pictures, drawings, photographs, screenshots, graphs) on other (not own) resources, especially where there are no solutions for publishing photos (Habr including) or they are inconvenient . These are articles on foreign resources or in their blogs on foreign hosting (for example, blogger.com) with inconvenient or defective picture management, on online auctions, comments on blogs and forums.
')
Hosting for this publication provides text links in the form of HTML-, BB-codes or direct links to the image and page view, preview (they are also thumbnails) of various sizes and a number of other amenities. Consider them all and arrange the hosting found in descending order of averaged convenience. At the end, as a bonus, links to some other online image preparation resources, which also follow the optional authorization rule.
Research history
Recently, some hosting was introduced for public advertising purposes, which caused a number of unobvious doubts about its respectability. Meanwhile, ideas of using it as an image service for publishing on Habré were heard. There was a counter-question: which image hosting, in particular, for Habr, is better to use?
First, several hosting sites were investigated using the example of a single image. It was found that the convenience of work for different hosting sites is different, and the results (by weight of the full picture, type and weight of the preview) are different. It is not clear that in this “industry” there was a quality standard; everyone is striving for convenience and stop at different lines. There are few reviews of hosting sites [1] (all of them are also important as evidence of their former reputation), give an answer only to some of the questions. Therefore, it was decided to go into testing more thoroughly, to figure out what is really needed, by priorities, and what can be donated. It turned out that there are not 5-10 suitable hosting sites, but 4 times more (about 30), despite the fact that it is 2 times more screened out (40-60). The list of hosting does not claim to be complete and does not recommend anything to use - it simply cites data on the listed hosting, and the data speaks for itself. It is likely that temporary unstable services got here and more worthy ones did not get. Therefore, in the future, the table will sometimes be shuffled according to the results of checks.
For example, in the future it is not bad to carry out load testing of each of the hosting sites [4], to make download attempts several times at different rush hours, to monitor the availability of each hosting for months. All this, of course, is not done immediately. We take advantage of the fact of publication, to then monitor the services and monitor the quality of storage.
Target service niche
They are not designed to show small service drawings of website design (some allow), for this purpose, regular universal hosting is used. But they are trying to ensure the quality and reliability of displaying important for the user graphic information. On the reliability of the show, even their own development hosting will lose to them in the long-term existence of the link.
We are interested in hosting with some hard conditions. For example, there is a mandatory authorization - then you can not watch (because there are enough hosting with the possibility of anonymous publishing). Working only with the client program or inconvenience without it is the same. No preview size options - great reasons to choose other alternatives. Yes, and any restrictions of the free version of the account do not go to benefit, because they distract for unnecessary control: will my old photos not stop showing if any threshold is exceeded? Nevertheless, they are worthy of consideration and choice of tastes.
The required services are only a part of the overall image processing task. The previous parts (editing, capturing) are not deliberately considered, although some editing may end up in the hosting service. We will not look at too simplified and integrated services like gyazo.com, in which little attention is paid to the quality of details. They are good for one-time viewing of screenshots by a small group of people, but they lack tools for publishing (for thousands of views and quality requirements). Therefore, by default, we assume that we have a graphics editor and a screenshot taker, and without what they can do, we can do without.
Image hosting is divided into photo hosting and, conditionally, technical image hosting. If the first ones are focused on photographers and other “ordinary people” who may not have their own site, then the second ones suggest publishing photos (or screenshots, pictures) in blog or forum entries, and therefore do not seek to give their own gallery service for viewing. The first are fully capable of working in the niche of the second. Therefore, the strongest hosting in the world is designed for the first type - for all. As payment, they all mostly limit free accounts in the rights and duration of storage. We are interested in both reliability and non-restriction, so we will have to consider not only recognized leaders.
We list, in descending order of priority, the necessary and desirable qualities of service. At the beginning of the necessary, then under the line - desirable.
| Requirements | Expanded notes to some requirements |
|---|---|
| 1) non-weight optimization (or at least failure to use one’s own “optimization” of the service with an increase in the weight of the original images or a change in quality) | In the task bundle, point 1 is important - the absence of imposed optimization, because it is supposed to publish for multiple impressions , and the author is able to make a high-quality image. In fact, if online Picasa gives a size 10 times worse than the source file and you can’t do anything about it (see PNG as an example), do you need such a program? That optimization will require to leave the model “in 1 program from gyazo.com - everything” to the model “2-3 programs, but of high quality in one’s business”. This controversial point is fundamental to the question of why we are looking for a service in this particular niche - only publication. |
| 2) reliability of shows (absence of short-term failures, including during peak hours) | 2) and 3): In 95% of cases, these 2 points are decisive. Unreliable service is only suitable for instant display and only during “favorable hours”, i.e. simply not needed. But we will be able to evaluate these items only from reviews, indirect signs (for example, the presence of a business model) and experience. |
| 3) storage time | (months and years of storage) |
| 4) work without an account | (it is not always at hand the password or the desire to enter / receive it) |
| 5) preview with the choice of the size of the preview at the time of creation; quality of parts in the preview and its weight | 1-2 fixed versions of decent previews will come down - the quality and weight of the previews themselves will be more important. |
| 6) view full clean images (without html and ads) | It seems to be a violation of the business model, but the presence of this item, even with reputable services, says that it does not interfere too much with existence, but rather attracts customers. |
| 7) source pictures - from computer | (there is an option when copying only from the web) |
| - (optional) - | |
| 8) signing or captioning (important is a good online optimization after signing) | Signing will be important for the speed of publication - let us know how to use the editor or we have a good screenshot with the signatures, but the signatures on the previews are very useful, since the previews are created automatically. By the way, as a way to bypass the lack of previews, make 2 pictures in the editor and automatically (a plug-in in the browser) publish 2 images at once, then automatically link them in the pasted text. Work, of course, more at the stage of creating 2 drawings. Now, if the offline editor already knew how to cook a preview ... |
| 9) source pictures from web | (not only from the computer) It is technically easy to implement, so having a copy from the web is an additional plus. |
| 10) code options for publishing (BB codes, HTML codes, clean link) | Conveniently, you can choose from all the options that may be needed, and the copying process is uncomplicated (for example, click + Ctrl-C, sometimes even just click, although it seems that this brute-force will erase something else important in the clipboard). |
| 11) drawing elements (frames, shadows, pencil) | If it is already in the editor, it is not necessary, but it will be useful when either the editor is not there, or during subsequent editing. |
| 12) upload including several files | (important for publishing large photo reports) |
| 13) editing without changing the storage address | (it is necessary, when the link of the publication cannot be changed) |
| 14) removal from a hosting | (Sometimes you need to delete your traces.) There are 2 options: non-authorization and keep an encrypted link for deletion / editing (in fact, a password) or authorization and without the need to store special links. |
Of course, other ways are possible: 1) only a screenshoter that can edit within the necessary limits, like Ashampoo Magical Snap 2 + image hosting or 2) online flash editor + plug-in for screenshots in FF + image hosting with the “Crop (cropping)” function. They are also sufficient for publications, but due to quality issues we will consider them to go beyond the scope of the article and research.
Preparation for testing
To determine the quality of image processing when saved on a hosting, take a few pictures of different types and genres. Two screenshot PNG-8, one animated GIF, Two half-tone JPGs of different weights, one very large png with texts. Total, 6 pictures. They will measure the quality of compression and display previews. We will get a clear picture of data storage on each of the hosting sites. If it was possible to draw conclusions on 1-3 pictures, the rest were not uploaded to the hosting, therefore we have links from 1 to 6.
The choice of PNG-8 only is due to the fact that PNG24 is disadvantageous in volume for photos with semitones (in most cases it is better to choose JPG), and hosting companies tend to save PNG type in PNG24 rather than PNG-8, therefore testing PNG-8 will help to reveal more flaws save operations.
1-test-shotChromeExt.png - PNG-8, small screenshot, 892 h 1014, 37`452 bytes;
2-test-oak.jpg - small photo, 517 x 317, 41`844 bytes;
3-test-elfim.gif - test animated avatar, 128 x 96, 58`697 bytes;
4-test-GerdArntz.png - PNG-8, big long screenshot, 1002 x 11`862, 1`099`246 bytes;
5-test-river.jpg - large photo, 1996 x 2649, 1`272`068 bytes;
6-test-austria-hungary.png - PNG-8, 2 color, wide map, 4463 x 3330, 828`732 bytes;
It would be tempting to put on the page all the previews from the hosting sites, but we will not do this - even 1 preview (50 pictures) - this is a lot for 1 page. Therefore, we will put here for clarity, 6 previews from one good hosting, and all other links to the images of other providers will be through <a href>. At any time, the reader will be able to manually verify the existence of a picture on the selected hosting by clicking on a link.
| one | 2 | 3 | 4 *) | 5 *) | 6 *) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| *) When clicking on 4, 5, 6, be careful: traffic is about 1 MB ! | |||||
The list of studied hosts.
The comparison did not include some well-known, reliable, but not passed by some parameters hosting. A little more about them below [3]; the names of some: Yandex Photos, Flikr.com, Google Picasa ...
In order not to repeat the list below again, it is sorted according to the results of this study in descending order of functionality and convenience. In accordance with the incoming data on the reliability of the list will be sorted if possible. All references to images in the tables are made in principle without authorization to check the reliability of storage in the future.
Attention is paid to each different, it depended on the degree of interest and the proposed opportunities. Unpromising restrictions stopped studying after downloading 1-2 pictures. After the list there will be more detailed reviews of three interesting hosting sites. (When clicking on links 4, 5, 6, be careful: traffic for each is about 1 MB ! They are needed to test the storage and quality of large pictures on different services. Links 4, 5, 6 with the words "Preview" are usually 5-50 KB. )
| Links | Notes |
|---|---|
| host.fotki.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 preview 1 2 3 4 5 6 page 1 2 3 4 5 6 | From the home page of the site anonymous download page is not immediately found, in 2 clicks. Next, do not forget to remove the checkbox for optimization and resize (there is a stepped resize). No other settings. Gives a series of texts for insertion, a preview (120x91), without statistics, without deletion. Preview hassle-free, easy. Those. convenience is minimal, but everything is there, and hosting is very large, which deserves attention. If on the page of viewing the image is reduced by means of html, then the cursor on it is “hand”, and you need to click to view in full size. Explicitly spelled out unlimited by the number of anonymous downloads and by the size of the pictures. Misleading the extension ".jpg" and the like when displaying pages ".htm". Enough for publications, it should be stable for impressions and does not have extra details on the preview page. The registration mode provides a number of other amenities: flash widgets for a site with a variable preview size. But for some reason it is not clear how to upload a photo to an album (via the website) without compressing the dimensions and without processing. Otherwise, the site looks like a place of communication level 2005-2006, plus blogs. |
| imageshack.us 1 2 3 5 preview 1 2 3 5 page 1 2 3 5 other design 1 gallery 1-2-3 player 1-2-3 A separate review is at the bottom of the article. | The richest in capabilities of the services in question. A simple listing takes up a lot of space, so moved down. The service has been around for a long time, there are programs for downloading and an API, a widget and even a torrent service, see the FAQ . English language; FAQ; The interface is Russian. Restriction on storage for unregistered - deletion in the absence of access to the file for a year. Among the shortcomings: can not load "4" and "6", hangs (Flash 10.0.45.2). Violation of proportions in GIF during the slideshow. |
| pikucha.ru 1 2 3 4 preview 1 2 3 4 page 1 2 3 4 |  Superminimalism, but with all the features, even the inscription in the preview (fig. Right). Easy to edit; multiboot. Preview - jpeg under the extension * .png, when necessary. The file name is in the URL of the pictures. It is worth seeing what the download panel looks like. The ratio of power to the number of parts as possible. And there is nothing more on the pages, except for a few links.  Under the word "Friend" is unobtrusive authorization. The issue of links after multiboot is also minimal, but each letter is useful (fig. On the left). Next - 5 links, previews, statistics, except for the download date. In the "3" gif you can see a flaw in the preview: the inscription with dimensions is only in the first frame of the animation, so it flashes [a small minus]. But on the page of viewing the gif - for some reason, a typical failure (not with one hosting): the proportions are distorted, the system decided that the dimensions are 61 x 91, although the picture itself is without distortion. |
| radikal.ru Direct links 1 2 3 4 5 6 Preview ( adjustable ) 1 page 1 Passed monitoring, 1 week. Below is a more detailed description of the features of the work. | The main page shows a concise text that perfectly matches what it is. Neither subtract nor add. Official text: The service allows you to easily and quickly publish your pictures on the pages of any online forum, blog, chat, message board (the necessary image preparation is done automatically). You just need to select a picture on the disk, click the DOWNLOAD button and then copy the finished link into your message.Recently added online editor (requires Silverlight). [minus] Each time you edit, the end addresses change; you need to change the inserted texts so that changes take place there. |
| imageshost.ru 1 5 preview 1 5 page 1 5 | JPG Previews are referred to as * .png. Your comment up to 250 characters. Adjustable size of the preview, the inscription on the preview, the inscription on the photo. Statistics on the watch page. Evaluation by anyone. Adding comments to the viewing page from anyone without authorization (hardly a plus). There is no clue that you can click on the image to enlarge it to full size [small minus]. "Send me an e-mail link to the image and a link to delete." 6 texts to insert, there is no separate direct link. There are a lot of advantages. |
| picamatic.com 1 5 preview 1 5 small preview 5 page 1 5 |  Very ergonomic loading: there are 16 places for showing previews, which fall 3-4 text (see. Fig. Right). Three, without a direct link - if the weight is more than 300 KBa (the straight line goes, but in 2 actions). Finally, all the data from this 4-by-4 matrix is ​​easy to save by sending it to your mail in 2 clicks (why only mail, and not text display, is not very clear (for spam?), Inconvenience). Previews up to 240px, very uneconomical for PNG - 38 kBa for picture “1”, for example. JPG for this size is also too big - 23 KB for the picture "5". Enough quality 60-75% with 9-12 kBa. There is a small preview, but it must be calculated (remove the word “big”) or taken from a matrix of 4x4 images.From the statement in the FAQ: “We adhere to storing pictures forever.” Hidden registration by cookie. The size of each picture should not exceed 2Mb. In recent days, according to the information from the guestbook, there have been many days of interruption, relocation, loss of part of the pictures from the hosting, but with the promise of recovery. Does not transfer its name without the prefix “www.” - [minus]. |
| uploadingit.com/public 1 3 (4 does not load) 5 big preview 1 3 5 small preview 5 (undocumented) page 1 3 5 | Files up to 50 MB, 1 file, without settings, preview up to 500px. Besides images - “Supported file types jpeg, jpg, png, gif, bmp, mp3, txt, avi, wmv, mpg, mpeg, doc, zip.”. They call it the “Direct Link” browsing page, not the real “Direct Link”. Too long picture "4" could not load. You can guess about the existence of an undocumented preview (change the word in the URL) up to 150px. In total, there are a lot of advantages, but everything necessary for pictures is there, plus other files - texts, archives, music, video. |
| imgur.com 1 2 5 preview 1 2 5 big preview 1 2 5 page 1 and 2 , 5 Below is a more detailed description of the features of the work. | Short address of the form imgur.com/tCkFz.png Large previews - up to 640 px , small - square 90x90px (differ by the last letter). Single page view: imgur.com/tCkFzs (group view is possible if a group of pictures is loaded at a time). imgur.com/bQo0C.png - published from under the account, for verification. There is a statistics view: the number of views, traffic, loading time. Links of 6 types, including tags with previews. API Compresses forcibly if over 1 MBa (eg, " 5 " squeezed from 1.2 MBa to 700 Kb). |
| savepic.ru 1 2 3 (4 not in size), 6 preview 1 2 3 6 page 1 2 3 6 | If the drawing is more than 768, then you need to go to “add. Parameters ”and cancel reduction. There are 3 gradations of previews (good). You can sign your own or “Zoom” + image weight. You can send links to the mail. Animation in the first saved. Display statistics on the page. "Size no more than 5000x4000 pixels and 4 MB." So there are a lot of advantages. “Images ... are deleted if within a period of 24 months no single treatment is made to them.” Is also a pretty good rule against the background of typical “3 months.” |
| theimghost.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 preview 1 2 3 4 5 6 page 1 2 3 4 5 6 screen after sending 1 and 2 , | Misleading the .png or .jpg extension for an HTML page. Preview with PNG - jpg, but poorly detailed (bad algorithm) and very heavy - 19-25 kBa for 150px. There is a group load without any other settings - neither before nor after. No photo removal link. There are sending links to your mail. Screenshot of the result of downloading 2 files at once. The link saves the file name. The full (natural size and weight) image, but compressed in HTML using up to 500px, loads into the preview page. (Next, it looks at the click.) It can be considered practical, with its advantages, but problems with weight and quality preview. |
| ephotobay.com 1 2 4 5 6 preview 1 2 4 5 6 page 1 2 4 5 6 | Several files, up to 6. Statistics. Trouble-free previews up to 150px in jpeg. Rating and comments from others. Text version as a group of links to copy everything at once. No separate direct links (but can be reached in 2 clicks). There is a zip download with pictures, from a URL, and even from html containing links to images. There is no privacy - it looks like it shows (the next day) in its output everything that is loaded, without asking whether to show it or not. There are no errors with gif. Restriction on loading - no more than once every 2 minutes. In cookies it stores hidden authorization (shows its pictures downloaded from the computer). |
| tinypic.com 1 4 5 preview 1 4 5 page 1 4 5 | There are no texts with a preview, but its URL is extracted from the text viewing page. PNG previews are compressed even worse than usual - 50 kBa (!) [Big minus] - larger than the original size of 38 kBa. Therefore, it is really better to avoid thumbs in png; jpg compresses fine. Large images are viewed through the reduced html, then click - again compressed, but with viewing on the screen, then below the link “Show raw image” - to the original (total, many clicks). If the size is more than 1600 pixels, then the size is reduced to 1600px with all the consequences. We have a moderate degree of inconvenience and cuts of large sizes. ("In the west, too, there are weak hosting.") From |
| itrash.ru 1 2 3 5 preview 1 2 3 5 page 1 2 3 5 | The problem with the optimization of the preview (190x251) - it weighs more (39K) than the original! (like in Picasa Google). For JPG, the performance is also not very good: 17-19 KBa, where 6 is enough with a quality of 50%. (This can be partially solved through the editing settings, but for an ordinary author this is not at all obvious.) Multiboot. There is a link to delete an unauthorized picture; There is a link to delete from the "My images" list of the ajax type. 7 texts to be inserted into the forums. Statistics (for the author) is. When editing a lot (almost all) is configured, except for the weight of the preview. The size of the preview can independently reduce and remove the problem. So, the service has tools, but by default they are not used very rationally. Limiting images - 4416x3312, if the file is less than 1.5 MB, otherwise 3888x2592px. The speed of work - reported that recently improved by moving to a new hosting. “The image is stored on the server during the year from the last viewing.” Hidden authorization by cookies, the data of which is picked up by this authorization. There are leaving comments by visitors. 03/29/2010: according to the results of corrections of deficiencies, the site admin is raised by rating. |
| ii4.ru 1 5 preview 1 5 page 1 5 | Preview up to 240px, 3 text, your comment on the page view, no authorization, no compression. View 1 to 1 from the page view - either, no direct link. In general, various trivia can be solved, because the main thing is present - the preservation of the original image. As the base for the API is suitable, but using it directly is not very convenient for large images. |
| fotometka.ru 1 5 preview 1 5 page 1 5 Passed monitoring, 1 week. | Before sending - setting tags, tags (hidden tag of the author), descriptions, the possibility of cuts to size. Very heavy previews (common PNG24 problem without optimization), up to 290 px. On the page - statistics (date, views, name). 4 text to insert. Quite enough for a modest hosting. |
| ixdrive.co.uk 1 2 4 preview 1 2 4 page 1 2 | Fail with weight previews (15 kBa PNG size up to 150px). The page after sending is compact and informative, but does not highlight text on click. Misleading the extension ".png" instead of ".htm". There is no link to delete. |
| uaimage.com 1 2 3 6 preview 1 2 3 6 page 1 2 3 6 gallery 2,3,6 | It is not obvious that you need to click on the image in the preview page (after a certain size) so that it becomes full. Advertising below. Preview up to 160. Do not hesitate to name the extension JPG on the PNG page, and correctly, it will be more natural. [big minus] There is no direct link to display in the browser - it goes as a download link. There is a link to the gallery - more than 1 preview, if several pictures are uploaded at once. |
| thumbsnap.com 1 4 5 preview 1 4 5 big preview 4 page 1 4 5 Passed monitoring, 1 week. | 4 text to copy. The html page is misleading by the extension * .jpg. From the address it is easy to get a version of a large preview, up to 500 px (not directly provided and not documented). Not trying to crush quality. Convenient for pre-optimized images. |
(It turned out that Habr does not allow to publish a volume greater than 46 KB. It is strange, strange, because this is only half of the publication in the most interesting place. You will have to issue it in the second part.)
The transition to the continuation and end of the article.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/89162/
All Articles